The Nature of Sovereignty
Written by Abdun Nur   

Version 3 – 24th October 2015

 

Active Image

 

The Nature of Sovereignty

Active Image

Sovereignty is never given, it is always taken, it is an external state, imposed, not an internal state, claimed upon the self.

Sovereignty means - pre-eminence (supremacy, dominance); authority, rule (14th century); in the sense of "existence as an independent state".

Even if you considered you rule yourself, it does not make you a sovereign, which is exclusively an externalised state, as sovereign means authority, you cannot be your own sovereign as you could not author yourself to wield authority and subjugate, because to subjugate is to subject another to your will, to make them a subject, so a slave, and you cannot make yourself another.

Sovereignty is the possession of sovereign power by a legal ‘person’ (corporation), whose dictates are imposed through the un-witnessed authoring of their mutable Social contract (compact) standing as an un-rebutted and ethereal, in as far as it cannot be examined, unnatural agreement, codified as corporate policy upon all ‘authored’ legal constructs, through the authors statist hierarchy, from which all political power is derived, establishing the freedom of the corporation of State over the citizens that living souls are tricked into representing, allowing its agents dominate, administrated through authoritative legislation imposed through force or the threat of force (positive law).

When pirate ‘Jean Lafitte’ (1780 – 1823) who held a valid privateering commission (granted by a sovereign) saw the ‘governor’ of a competing sovereign authority advertising a $500 reward for his capture, ‘Lafitte’ offered $5000 for the capture of the governor. Turning the tables on those who seek to dominate by reflecting what they impose back upon them.

Constructed legal fictions are authored by individuals on behalf of a ‘public’ (corporation), that results in the formation of the state, the prime motive for consent of the subjugated souls being the desire for protection from encroachments upon their liberties, while ironically the consent through silence or compliance of the living souls to identify themselves and their properties with the authored fictions of the State, demands the surrender of some or all inherent liberties.

If you are under the authority of a sovereign, you are considered a ‘subject’, and can be ‘subjugated’ (being subdued, ‘placed below’) through the authored constructed legal fictions, which provides authority of sovereign rule.

A sovereign is a legal fiction used to establish govern-mental control, manifest in the consciousness of a living soul termed ‘in capita’, meaning ‘in the head’ – within the mind of the living soul being subjugated, their actions are regulated by a person or institution they perceive superior to themselves and all others, allowing the sovereign whether corporeal or incorporeal to act criminally without accountability, or to suffer encroachment with a belief they may not, or cannot seek relief.

Sovereignty is the legal fiction of a nation or state's supreme power within its borders. A government might respond, for example, to criticism from foreign corporate governments of its treatment of its own ‘citizens’ by citing its ‘rights’ of sovereignty.

The fictional right of sovereignty is derived not from constructed positive law, but from fear and violence as a threat or force of arms by agents of the sovereign power, as an extension of the founding fraud of ‘ownership’, which holds all those upon the owned (meaning controlled) land as chattel (slaves, many words are rooted in this term, serf, citizen, person, human, etc.); the State corporation claims ownership of all. In Britain for example ownership was established in 1086 with the creation of the Doomsday Book after the completion of the genocide of the indigenous population. In America it was established in 1776 with the creation of the declaration of independence after the genocide of the indigenous population; and so on; murdering the existing population is required as they have allodial equity upon the axioms of the land, which is the true system of justness.

This ruthless subjugation is clear from the medieval monarchies, the last argument of the Sovereign was engraved on the canon; for example on French cannons, by order of Louis XIV, was the legend ultima ratio regum (known as "the king's final argument") — a Latin phrase that means, essentially, "Submit, or I'll murder you."

Ultima - The last, final or ultimate

Ratio - reckoning, account, calculation (derivative of the base of rērī  to judge, think)

Regum  - kings: in the definition -‘of sovereigns’

 

Sovereignty has four basic asymmetrical ‘legal fictions’ applied to it:

·        Territorial integrity, meaning the border is fixed, no stealing of the land claiming ownership from your neighbours.

·        Border inviolability, meaning that its invented borders must not or cannot be transgressed, dishonoured, or broken; they are to be kept sacred.

·        Supremacy of the state (rather than the Church)

A sovereign is the supreme law making authority within their jurisdiction (meaning a monopoly in the administration of disputes within a corporately claimed area of land. This is done through law merchants, who sell the law and extract revenue from disputes).

Jurisdiction is the power and authority (labelled ‘constitutionally’ established) with respect to the "act of settling, settled condition, anything arranged or settled upon, regulated, ordered, or in ordinance," being the imposed policy of the corporate State or feudal lord in control the land, that conferred authority upon a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of their Lord (feudal superior).

This is why if you leave the area held by a landlord, you are outside of their jurisdiction, as they impose through their control of the land, upon all slaves within or upon it.

Like all legal fictions the idea of sovereignty is vague and undefined.

“There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon.” - Lassa Oppenheim, an authority on international law

In its true nature the legal fiction of sovereignty lives and dies with the legal fiction of ‘ownership’, meaning the control of the land, that control was originally taken by force of arms and is maintained through the same means. “Sovereignty concerns the expressed and institutionally recognised ‘legal’ right to exercise control over a territory.” Ownership is explained here “The Onion of Ownership’.

The fiction of Sovereignty is given tacit justified by two methods ‘the divine right of kings’ (the mandate of heaven) or to a ‘social contract’ as explained earlier.

The divine right of king’s supposition asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving their right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church. According to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act.

Of course the very idea of a king is instituted on the feudal bandits who murdered, pillaged and enslaved, all monarchies are both inequitable and a tortious act if imposed, we are each born equal, possessing inherent power as a natural state, all men or women in sight of equity are created equal in dignity, privilege, benefit, nobility, value; and vary only in knowledge and skills. Inherent power of the individual can be expressed as ‘Natural Axioms’ which has nothing to do with any God it is the innate nature of mankind. (See: ‘Inherent Power’)

The implied contract in law (corporate) supposition typically posits that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the State, presumptively in exchange for the protection of their innate natural equities of reciprocal obligations and responsibilities. Commonly this is achieved through the fraud of democracy claiming the decision of a majority grants authority of sovereigns, unfortunate that claim is unfounded as no collective right exists, a reciprocal obligation is always individual based. The unalienable and immutable natural equity of every living soul are removed and replaced with granted privileges, being invented entitlements known as rights, by every form of imposed sovereignty, these ‘legal codes’, which exist as fictions upon the axioms of the land, invent legal constructs in opposition to the inherent power of true equity; a legal system can only deal in fictions and can only bind fictions as it only has authority over that which it has authored.

The concept of sovereignty will continue to be extended if it continues to be un-rebutted or unchallenged, and the horrors of sovereignty will continue to escalate:

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

Active Image